The Dispatch Podcast - Heidi Heitkamp Talks Filibuster, Biden’s First Year

Episode Date: January 21, 2022

On today’s episode, Sarah and Steve speak with Heidi Heitkamp, former North Dakota senator and founder of One Country Project. They cover everything from the filibuster to President Biden’s first year in office. What doesn’t work about the Senate? Can Biden turn things around before the midterms?   Show Notes: -TMD looks back at Biden’s first year -Uphill looks at the state of Build Back Better Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the dispatch podcast. I'm your host Sarah Isger with Steve Hayes. And today we are talking to former North Dakota Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp and the founder of one country project, which does great work, sort of trying to bring Democrats together, right? What unites the Democratic Party? And we'll be talking about all of that today. Let's dive right in. Heidi, we are thrilled to have you here. I just want to start out letting you talk about the sort of best case for keeping the filibuster at this point and the best case for getting rid of the filibuster at this point.

Will you give us sort of both of your thoughts on that? I mean, the best case for getting rid of it is it's not working the way it was supposed to work. And by that, I mean, it has literally made every piece of legislation that moves through the Senate a 60-vote piece of legislation. And you might say, well, but some of these things get done without 60 votes. That's because there's exceptions to the filibuster. Probably the most important exception in recent times has been reconciliation. And I think, as I have said, when you use reconciliation, what all these members do is they sit off to the side and they like knock on the door, the leader,

please could I get this in reconciliation? Please could I get this bill? And the public never sees the bill because it's usually voted on at two in the morning after somebody patched it all together. And so this is not the way to run the railroad. And so the filibuster has basically leapfrog regular order. And regular order, which goes to the filibuster, is not used anymore.

And if it is used, it's not used on important pieces of legislation. So the best case for keeping the filibuster is that it does, in fact, create an atmosphere where you have to come to consensus, and that creates more certainty for legislation. Let me give you an example. So when I first got to the Senate, I was assigned to the banking committee. I represent a state with a lot of small community bankers. Dodd-Frank was really crushing the competitive edge that they would have because they were supposed to abide by the same rules that, you know, J.P. Morgan was supposed to abide by, which wasn't realistic. And so I worked for the better part of six years to get a change to Dodd-Frank, which was passed with

60 votes, right? So when we came together with a collaboration, we were able to get those 60 votes. And so the fixes that we made are much more certain into the future, because it's going to be really hard, number one, because a lot of people signed on. And number two, it's going to be really difficult for those people to backtrack and for people to find 60 votes to change the fixes that we made. So there is an argument for kind of this super majority of members agreeing to, especially big pieces of legislation that would provide certainty. So those are two things. And, you know, I always tell people that the Senate, you pass a bill three ways. one by unanimous consent.

Now, I at once had a bill that every member, we almost had every member as a sponsor, right? So every member agreed to and one person stopped. And think about that, that it wasn't just, you know, the 40 members. It was just one member who could stop that. The second way you do it is you do it in this reconciliation on must-pass pieces of legislation. That's why you see when big infrastructure bills come

through, you know, reauthorizations come through FAA is one that comes to mind where you have to reauthorize every two years. And people just wait to get their favorite piece of legislation on. And it really, really distorts the process. And the third way is regular order and filibuster has basically stopped in a hyperpartisan way, regular order from working. And, and I, you know, this is my other rant. The current system does, one thing that people don't really appreciate, it puts way too much power in the hands of Senate leadership. Well, that's interesting because we've also heard that criticism when we've talked to House

members that the House process is getting wildly distorted because committee chairman no longer really even have any power. It's all getting funneled really through just leadership, you know, speaker type leadership of either party and that that's hurting the process in the House. Well, you actually just because you have so much experience in this, and this is a podcast, for people who really like getting in the weeds. I'm curious about the history of reconciliation because it seems like such a large carve out from the filibuster that, for instance, when we had the carve out that Harry Reid did for lower court judges, it was very obvious that then when

Republicans took control, there would be a carve out for Supreme Court judges, as in once you crack the door on this, the door swings open. How did reconciliation come about? And why hasn't that just swung the door open to getting rid of the legislative filibuster already. Well, it's an interesting question. And I think it's because this process has, you know, if you think about this whole thing as a pressure cooker, right? And the Vant has been reconciliation. So in some ways, I would argue, Sarah, with you that reconciliation has led to a greater tolerance for the filibuster.

If you didn't have reconciliation, non-filibusterable, if we can use that word, if you didn't have this exception to the filibuster for reconciliation, I think the filibuster would have been much more endangered a long time ago. And the other part of the answer would be reconciliation is very limited in the amount and what it, based substantively what it can be used on and how often, right? But Steve hasn't been. I mean, when reconciliation was basically going to get used to roll back Obamacare, major piece of legislation. And, you know, you see that erosion.

And Elizabeth, who is the Senate parliamentarian, is one of my best pals. And I just, every time she gets in this reconciliation fight, because she's got it, she's kind of the judge on what qualifies. I just, I send her text and say, hang in there. You know, God, you know, I'm smiling. I'm in your corner no matter what you decide. Will you actually just channel Elizabeth for a second and explain to our listeners how what the rule is, at least theoretically on reconciliation? The rule is pretty simple.

It's got to have a budget effect. Well, what doesn't have a budget effect? And so when you look at, and one of the things that I always looked at, and I'm not, I mean, I don't want to profess to be like, like, you know, Senator. bird and an expert on these rules or, you know, leadership staff who are experts on these rules. But I always think, is it something where the Finance Committee has jurisdiction? And the Finance Committee has jurisdiction, it probably is something that can, in fact,

fit in reconciliation. And you remember that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid. And so these are, you know, you would, you would, think, well, that's the Health Committee, that's health and human services. And no, it's finance because that's a big part of our budget. And so, you know, I always, I always think, well, if the Finance Committee has jurisdiction, it's likely that that fits in. And that's how you've seen the shoe warning of things that logically you may not think fit in reconciliation. You know, obviously voting rights didn't. That there isn't a budget implication to voting rights.

And so people out there who say, well, why didn't they put voting rights on the reconciliation bill? Because the parliamentarian would let him. And she's holding her thumb down. But I know her frustration. And she can speak for herself. And she doesn't because that's not her role. But her frustration is, why is this up to me? Why don't you get the place working again so that we can get reconciliation where it's,

belongs, which is, you know, kind of that stopgap for funding government, and you guys can get back to regular order where we get committee reports that come out of committee and that are put on the floor of the Senate. When I was there, and I don't know what kind of language you allow, but I had this, people would say, well, what's your reform? And I said, look, everybody wants their one amendment or their five amendments on every bill. That's why you see what, what's called filling the tree, right? So if a bill comes in regular order, the leadership will basically fill up all the amendment slots. And you see people talking about the failure of the amendment process. Well, because so few bills go there, everybody has their idea. And if they can't get

UC on their idea, they try and then get it on, you know, a must piece of legislation as an amendment. And so I said, you know, some of these amendments should not be passed into law. And so I said, okay, I got an idea. I said, every Wednesday afternoon, everybody gets five of these at Congress. And it's bad shit crazy Wednesday. We're just going to vote on your amendments, you know, up or down. Your amendments can't be amended. You argue your point and we vote them down. People tune in for that. I would tune in to C-SPAN for Batchit crazy Wednesday. Yeah, wouldn't it be a great idea? I said, but if I'm going to sit there and listen to all this crazy. I want fix it Friday, where we sit down and we actually debate pieces,

serious pieces of legislation that would move the country forward, right? So the problem that you have right now, and I think you see it in both the House and the Senate with retirements, is you see a lack of job satisfaction. And these rules are stopping good people from wanting to serve because job satisfaction is at an all-time low. So I always think, thought if they would just adopt my rule. That shit crazy Wednesday. It would be entertaining. People turn into C-SPAN, right?

And then fix it Friday where we would sit down and actually, number one, work on a Friday. No idea. And basically debate legislation. I said, I don't even care if you give it a 60-vote threshold legislation. Because if I can't get 60 people to agree to a change that I want to make to Obamacare, then maybe it shouldn't be changed. But you can't, you can't amend it. It's up or down vote. People get a shot to actually legislate. And, and the reason why none of that will happen is it takes too much power away from leadership. Why is jobs satisfaction so low?

Because they do so little. Who wants to go to work every day and do nothing? I mean, they're, there, I would just say, as a counterpoint, a lot of senators? Maybe not a lot. Maybe that's unfair. That's too cynical. But I can name a number of senators who would actually prefer to do less legislating and prefer to spend more time on Fox News or MSNBC, right? I mean, isn't that part of the problem? But you got to realize those same senators, if you and I compare lists, they're presidents in waiting. They don't want to take the risk of legislating because then they're going to be accountable for that legislation. And that's another problem is this kind of, you know, when I was an attorney general, I was a state attorney general

in North Dakota. And we belong to a group called NAG, very funny, right, acronym, National Association of Attorneys General. And the acronym was changed to National Association of Aspiring Governors. Right, right. Yeah. So the Senate has become the National Association of Aspiring Presidents. Which changes who runs for the office. So it changes who's in the body to begin with. If you don't, if you're not attracting people who want to be legislators, then the body's going to do legislation and you end up in this kind of vicious cycle. As again, I think we've seen in the House where we have new House members who aren't hiring legislative staff. They're just hiring more comm staff to help with the booking.

That is just disgusting. I mean, and where's the accountability? And this goes back to kind of electoral process. You know, okay, so when I was elected, it was people considered it a miracle, right, that, you know, an older, I always said, post-manapausal woman, red hair in North Dakota, could get elected to the Senate, right? I'd been around a long time, obviously. But, you know, I thought when I got elected, I knew that I had one chance to prove that I could legislate. And so my whole goal was to be effective. And literally, you know, didn't spend a lot of time

telling my story, just did a lot of, like, the Dodd-Frank reform. I was able to. able to open up oil exports for North Dakota Bacan Crude. I mean, I could go through all the list, two farm bills, you know, fixes for community banks. I mean, things I'm really proud of, water bills. And so I thought, okay, if we are in a world where accomplishments matter and not party identification, I'll be fine because I've gotten a lot done. And, you know, that's not the world we're in.

We're in a world where it's about voting for the tribe. And here's a great number, and I don't know if you guys are familiar with Mark Melman. He was my pollster. And when I ran in, when Kent and Byron used to run, and I ran in 12, about 20% of Republicans, North Dakota is predominantly Republican, would cross over. They'd say, yeah, yeah, she's a Democrat, but I like her. She's, you know, she knows how to get things done. She cares about the issues I care about.

Okay. When I ran for re-election, it was only four. And we're seeing those numbers across the country, by the way, of ticket splitting has dropped to an all-time low. Right. And so how do you effectively, when it's a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, as opposed to Heidi Heikamp and Kevin Kramer,

how do you effectively get people who want to legislate who see reward in achieving results? I mean, I think, and I'm not bragging, but I think if you took any other freshman senator and said, you know, list accomplishments, I would rank up there with the most green of first termers in terms of things that I was able to do for my state. It did not matter. Yeah, just picking up on that point and sort of broadening the lens a little bit, if you look at Joe Biden, Biden's presidency. One year in, the one year anniversary of his inauguration was yesterday. Big piece in the New York Times today by Nate Cohn, who argues that the fundamental problem with the first year of Joe Biden's presidency is that he's governed on essentially a two-partisan basis.

He's doing the things that are priorities for Democratic activists and partisans and neglecting the big things that need doing that are reflective of the priorities of the broader electorate. Do you buy that? Are we talking about the same things that you were just discussing or is that too simple? Yeah, I disagree with him. I think that a lot of what this president has done has, in fact, addressed the pandemic and the economic consequences of the pandemic.

You know, everybody forgets, and maybe Sarah, you can comment on this, but everybody forgets that the initial reaction to the pandemic under the Trump administration came from the Fed. I mean, that's when the Fed really got engaged because they didn't see fiscal policy being addressed the same way. And then, of course, we got the big packages that resulted in PPP and, you know, some of the other kinds of, you know, expansion or extension of unemployment, those kinds of things. but initially the reaction came from the Fed.

And so when you look at what Biden did, when he came and he said, we still need economic stimulus. We still need to address the pandemic. Then he got handed a gift, in my opinion, which was an infrastructure package that was bipartisan. The big mistake was he should have told Nancy Pelosi passed that infrastructure package, and I'm getting on the road to talk about the stimulus,

talk about the child tax credit, talk about what I'm doing with infrastructure, and then build the case for the other packages. You always, when things transition, especially someone like me who's on that, more in the middle of the party, I got asked, you know, what's the one piece of advice you would give Joe Biden coming in?

And I said, get the hell out of Washington. You know, if you think you're going to do a deal with these people, you're so naive, you know, and when he said, well, I didn't, I underestimated. No one should have underestimated how toxic the partisanship is in Congress. The only way, and Bill Clinton, like them or love him, you know, what he did anytime he got stalled, he went out on the road. I mean, he just did big rallies, and so did Trump. And so you've got to, and Sarah, I know that I said that when we, we, I said that when

We were on ABC together, but, you know, I said that the remarkable statement was people in the United States don't want a president who's also a senator. I mean, I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but I thought, duh, I mean, this was something you should have known a year ago. And those of us who have seen this erosion who offered that advice, and you can blame the pandemic, that's why I didn't get out there. there were ways to do, you know, one-on-one, ways to do to build support. And he did not talk to the right audience. So if you said, if I'm writing that op-ed, I'm going to say he didn't recognize who his audience was. So let me pick up on that. So, you know, he's pushing things now like voting rights.

In the article, Nate Cohn talks about universal pre-K, climate change, voting rights, child tax credit. And then he writes this, even if those proposals are needed or important, they do not rank high on the list of the public's demands at the heart of a pandemic and with rising inflation. Only 33% of voters say the president is focused on the issues they, quote, care a lot about, according to a recent CBS poll. And he goes on to make the argument that this makes Joe Biden much more like LBJ than like FDR. He's talking about things that excite the Democratic base. I mean, if you look at what was in build back better, I mean, I think the COVID relief package, bipartisan support, if you look at the things that were in build back better,

a lot of them are these things, probably many of them left over from your time in the Senate that have been to priorities of the Democratic base, but are not necessarily things that the rest of the country wants or is pushing, particularly in this context, right? Well, they need to pivot now, okay? back better needs, and I've told some former colleagues this, needs to be a political document. It can't be a policy document. What do I mean by that? So you want to cap the price

of insulin, which has been around for time immemorial. My husband has, he was a family physician, is appalled by what has happened with the prescription drug prices for insulin. When he started insulin was way cheaper than it is right now. Why? It hasn't really effectively changed, right? So cap the price of insulin and then ask the question, why doesn't Juan Johnson want to cap the price of insulin? Why doesn't want Ron Johnson? So we've got an economic challenge in workforce, right? So five million women are out of the workforce because they can't find daycare and can't afford daycare. Okay. Daycare is an economic imperative. It's not a social justice issue, although you could couch it that way. To me, it's an economic imperative. You've got to

make, if you want to get America back working, and so that's how we need to talk about build back better and the priorities and build back better, I think, I think there were some mistakes in build back better. But I think for the most part, and, and, okay, this is going to make people, you know, and maybe in New York, hate me, but $80,000 for assault deduction, that's really expensive. And let me, I was telling Sarah, I do taxes, let me tell you, Nobody in my family has a state and local tax deduction that's anywhere near $80,000. And so now they need to pare it down. They need to address, as you say, Steve, those issues that Nate's talking about,

what are the issues they care about, make this address those issues that people care about, and then turn this thing, weaponize, build back better, as a political document that will define who people stand with. maybe you can help answer a question that that I have that we've been having a little bit behind the scenes you know just among friends or staff there's a piece out today of course from a bunch of anonymous sources blaming Ron Clayne for all the bad things in the world I'm I'm not that convinced that a single chief of staff is to blame for anything in particular but there's a nugget in here that I want to get your reaction to this is an NBC story from Mike Memoli Carol Lee, Kristen Welker, Courtney Cube. It was a big story.

It's a lot of people gossiping with a lot of people. The main criticism of Clayne, whether from current or former Biden staff members or those who consider them allies of the president, flow from a single idea that Biden has strayed from his core brand as a pragmatic, empathetic politician who won the Democratic nomination as a moderate willing to compromise. They see Clayne as the person. responsible for that. Claims ubiquitous presence on Twitter has solidified that view, particularly for those who see it as being out of step with a 2020 campaign that deliberately tuned out cable news pundits and blue checkmarks on social media. I look at the first year

of the Biden presidency. And I see six months of basically the Biden who campaigned and won the nomination by, yeah, ignoring cable news and blue check marks on Twitter. And then a second six months, where it feels like he is only responding to cable news and Twitter controversies, it sums up with that speech in Atlanta that was so partisan, so out of touch with what the reality was, which was that the White House had not reached out to a single Republican to talk about what Republicans might support when it comes to federalizing some voting rights, standardizing some voting rights legislation. And instead, we're now talking about the semantics of whether he compared them to Bull Connor or just said that they were on the side of

Bull Connor. And then a week later, he gives a press conference and he sounds like the Biden from his inaugural address. Well, it's about unity and bringing the country together. Do you have an idea of what's going on and why this whiplash between campaign Biden and blue checkmark Twitter, Biden? Yeah, you know, I think like all White Houses, it's the crisis du jour, right? And, you know, I've been saying this. A key component of the Democratic constituency is African-American voters who feel quite aggrieved by what's going on with, you know, and we can debate this probably at a different time

of what's going on across the country. in states that are trying to curtail voting rights. And so I think there was this sense you've got to be on their side. You've got to make it clear you're on their side. And so whether that was an overstatement, I mean, a lot of Democrats have criticized it as not helpful. I think if Joe Biden had a chance to go back, I think he would call in Mitt Romney. He would call in these other folks. I think there has been, despite Senator Sinema and Senator Manchin being so clear for so long, we are not moving.

There was always this idea that we can build up enough pressure that they're going to crumble. And I can tell you, having been on the other side of that, all it does is solidify your position. And so they terribly misread two personalities. And so the real challenge here is the reset. And, you know, it's a lot easier for people to criticize the chief of staff than it is to criticize the commander-in-chief. And so there's got to be somebody, you know, I think what you're seeing now is this sense. that to the rest of the Democratic Party members across the country, you need to hit a political reset. The classic way you do that is you remove your personnel, right? And so, you know,

it doesn't surprise me. And Sarah, I think it's interesting how you said, well, you know, Biden in the beginning wasn't this guy. Go back and take a look at the appointments. I mean, and this may sound like sour grapes, right? If any progressive had any criticism of anybody who was being considered for any position, then they were persona non-grata. And so you didn't bring in diversity to begin with. You didn't bring in kind of the guy in the back of the room who's going to stand up and say, this ain't working.

So now you've got a bunch of like-minded people who are all singing from the same, you know, choir book. as opposed to people saying, hey, I'm out there, I know what's going on, I know what you need to do to get your agenda passed, and you're not doing the things that need to be done. And so I would say that there is kind of this academic intellectual bias that they have that is left over from perhaps the Obama administration. They need street fighters like James Carvel, and I don't know who the new generation of James Carvel. need people who are who understand the process like david axelrod they need people like paul bagala and they can't just be sending out fundraising letters those guys have to come back and say look we've been here

before we've hit the reset we've been able to maybe not win the midterms but we've been able to come back and win a second term after dramatic loss in the midterms and i'm not willing to give up on the midterms yet but there needs to be a reset but i've been preaching reset for six months You know, if you live where I live, you can see, you know, if Joe Biden has, you know, 35% favorability in North Dakota, 30 to 40, and it drops to 20, and you sense it out there, and you start seeing obscene bumper stickers, and you go to concerts, and they're all saying, you know what, Biden, you, there's a sense in the community and in places where people live that, okay, that may be North, Dakota, but it also is east of western Pennsylvania. It also is western Minnesota. So don't think that you can ignore what people like me see as trends. Does that make sense, Sarah? It makes a ton of sense. Yeah, this actually is a sort of a recurring theme on this podcast of many of the points that you just made. When you look back on the way that Joe Biden ran for

president and his sort of miraculous comeback when it looked like it was Joe Biden against Bernie Sanders. I think the conventional wisdom is that he ran as a centrist. I guess my view is more that he looked like a centrist because he was running against Bernie Sanders. He was a socialist. Do you think Joe Biden was a centrist as a candidate? And do you think that part of the challenge that he's facing now is that he just hasn't governed as a centrist? You know, I think he would dispute whether he's governed as a centrist. And people dispute on where the center is, right? I forget who said it.

Yes. Yeah, yeah. Like, like, I'm, I was on a, I was on a Zoom meeting with some energy leaders. And someone said, well, I'm a centrist. I'm in the center. And we all think I'm the center and therefore people on either side. what I would say is Joe Biden became that guy

who could beat Trump for the Democratic Party and that's a judgment that James Clyburn made Joe Biden would not be President of the United States without South Carolina without Clyburn, right? I mean, can we all agree on that?

Agreed. And so he was defined by who he beat but he also was willing to say things like I'm not for the Green New Deal I'm for the Biden deal, right? So he would take the elements that he thought were important and he would want to define them as his policy.

I think that the reaction, okay, if you look at kind of the history of what happened with Obama, right? So there are Democrats who are still mad at the Obama, administration because they thought he went too small after 2008. I think that Biden being part of that administration was reacting to that you're too small. And obviously there's a lot of economists, liberal economists, whether it's Robert Reich, whoever it is, there's a lot of people out there who are, who are arguing it was too small and go large. And then he's got, you know, the progressive movement, the Democratic, what are they called, the social justice Democrats. And so, so, so he's,

he's got all these pressures without, without a firm sense on, okay, I mean, not that I'm, I'm the end all and be all. Take a victory lap when you win and don't delay a bipartisan win, right? So, what would the narrative be today if they had held off, done a victory lap on a bipartisan infrastructure package and said, look. That they could have passed in June. Right. And that was, if you want to know the one place where I will go to my grave believing was the beginning of the end, was that critical

political mistake. And so you have to look at the president's political team at that point in time. And you have to look to Nancy Pelosi. I mean, what was Nancy saying in terms of what she could pass? And my point was, even if it failed, If it failed with Republicans voting against it, you've got a campaign issue. I mean, so it was a huge, huge political, it was political malpractice, not to take. And God love Joe Manchin, he kept saying, pass it, pass it. And then let's see what we can do on this other piece of it.

Let's find out what these resources will do to help build back better. And so, I mean, what a should or coulda, now the point becomes, how do you, how do you hit a reset when you've already lost so much political ground? And quite honestly, when the president said, I don't believe the polls, he believes the polls. He then went on to talk about the polls in great detail for about five minutes right after he said that. Can I, let me just sneak one more in, Sarah, and pass it back to you. how, I mean, you know, what you're saying to me makes a lot of sense. How many Democrats are you speaking for at this point? Because I can imagine, like, if somebody just listened to what you said, which was pretty

tough, like, let's be clear, political malpractice is not something you hear every day, pretty critical of the White House. How many Democratic colleagues, former Democratic colleagues of years of the 50 that are in the Senate right now would listen to what you just said and nod their head along with you And how many would say, nah, no, she's, she's a, she's a centrist. This is not, this is not where the party is. I think the majority. Really?

The majority, yeah. And, and I think they thought, um, we could get this done before Christmas. And, and their wish was that build back better would happen quickly, that, that they would get mansion to come around, um, you know, and, and so they, they bet on being able to forge a compromise right um and but but i i i'm not saying anything different right now than what i said in june of last year i mean i said it was political malpractice when it was happening in real time and if i were so influential steve they would have passed it they said man that i can't she's got she really understands what's going on that's not what happened so uh

I think it's fair to say that, you know, those of us on the outside kind of hollering in don't always have any more influence than you guys do. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance. can be serious. That kind of financial strain, on top of everything else, is why life insurance

indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage, with a 4.8 out of five-star rate. rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through ethos. It builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos.

Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ethOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. I want to talk a move to 2022 a little bit, but starting with what the president said in his press conference that has sort of become this little partisan, you know, volleyball that people are trying to hit at each other. So I want to take some of that out of it, because that's why I really enjoy talking to you. So in his press conference, when asked whether

he believes that the 2022 election could in any way be illegitimate, that's the question he was asked. He says, oh yeah, I think it could be illegitimate. Imagine if, in fact, Trump had succeeded in convincing Pence not to count the votes. He's interrupted in regard to 2022, sir, the mid-term elections, the president. Oh, 2022. I mean, imagine if those attempts to say that the count was not legit, you have to recount it, and we're not going to count, we're going to discard the following votes. I mean, sure, but I'm not going to say it's going to be legit. The increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed.

What does it mean when both political parties question the legitimacy of elections they don't win? And do you think that's what he was saying? Feel free to disagree, like, reinterpret it, take it however you want. I think that what he was trying to say is that there are things that are happening out there in states that are deeply troubling. And we will have to see how this plays out. That at this point, I mean, if I had been at that podium and they had asked me that, I would say, we have a Department of Justice that's going to be very aggressive in protecting voter franchise. And we're out there already. We're going to be talking to state secretaries of state. We're going to be talking to

state governors. We're going to be talking to everybody because it's so important for our democracy that we have a universal understanding of what constitutes integrity of elections. That would have been a better answer. Right. And so I'm not willing to say everything is going to be handled correctly at this point, but I am willing to do everything that I can within the power that I have to guarantee that our democracy is working. Should I be worried, though?

So I am deeply concerned. I mean, you know, Sarah, you could take, I mean, okay, so Mitch McConnell says African Americans have voted at the same rate as Americans. What the hell does that mean? It's a little telling, right? So does that mean I'm going to now announce to the world that Mitch McConnell believes that African Americans aren't real Americans? No, but it does give you an insight into his soul a little bit. And so people, when they're put on the spot, say things, you know, there was. too much stream of consciousness in that press conference, right? And, and, you know, and, and some,

I mean, that's the raw Biden. I mean, you know, he's, he's thinking out loud as he's thinking about these issues. And that doesn't mean that's the, the, the, the, I mean, that's where his head is at this point in time. And so I think that you'll see a lot of people coming back and saying, look, these are the things that we need to do to guarantee the integrity of elections. You know, he's, he's not a, he's not a political commentator at that podium. But he was, right? I wasn't that part of the problem? I mean, that's, that's what he was doing.

And he felt like, you know, I was, I was reminded as I was listening to it, um, of that scene from Meet the Parents, where Ben Stiller is asked to say grace. And he like, doesn't know what the heck he's doing. And he's sort of like, he's like, oh, you know. works his way into it and then he's like day by day by day by day and I felt like that's what Biden was doing he would start to give an answer and would have no idea where it was going and then would sort of click into a groove for a little bit and they get lost again although although to be fair I mean I think you saw somebody who had been thinking about these issues he just hadn't

put the the kind of political narrative to the issues like I just did. So if Democrats lose the House. That's what he should have said. What I said is what he should have said. That's for sure. If Democrats lose the House in the Senate in 2022, and Stacey Abrams does not win in Georgia, how much will we see Democrats question the legitimacy of the election? I don't know. I think it depends on what happens in the election. I mean, you know, so we're back to that. You know, so we didn't get these election reforms passed. You know, you know, that I was for them, I believe that they were critical. You've got to go to Plan B.

When you can't get something done, you've got to figure out what the next step is. One of the things, Sarah, that's not being talked about, and this happened with the National Association of Attorneys General. You know, we did the tobacco settlement. Oh, the Chamber of Commerce hated us, all the, you know, who's next? And, you know, how dare you attack the tobacco industry? And so the National Association of Attorneys General that had always been. and pretty collegial turned into a political. And now the Republican AG's Association

was a big part of raising money to send people to the rally on January 6th. So the AGs now become political. Guess what's happening with secretaries of state? And so these are the trends that I watch, not whether you can hand out a bottle of water, but who's running for Secretary of State and what commitments are they making?

when they're running. And how do we have a process of oversight? You know, we've had these wonderful election workers on both sides of the aisle, and you saw the integrity in Arizona, Republican integrity in Arizona. You saw the Republican integrity in Georgia. You saw the integrity of these election workers who felt so personally attacked when they said, you didn't do it right. And are we replacing them now with partisans? Are we replacing them now with legislator? And these are the issues that we need to be watching and exposing. And it's, you know, I think at the end of the day, you know, the, the world will turn many times, and we have to see what the Department of Justice comes up with.

Mark Elias, who is, you know, pretty much the lawyer for every Democratic candidate in the world, is engaged in his democracy docket and doing great work. in bringing lawsuits on redistricting. So we've got, the world's going to turn. And this is what I'll say about the midterms. In 2016, no, 2014, the Democratic Party lost, what, nine senators? I think it was the 14th election. When that happened, everybody had an idea what the issue was going to be.

You know what the overriding issue was? It was Ebola, because Ebola hit at the time and created great uncertainty. And all of a sudden, Mark Pryor couldn't overcome this idea that the Democrats weren't protecting people from Ebola. I mean, how far we have come, given what happened with COVID, right? But so, you know, and people said, well, the impeachment, the first impeachment is going to be the big political issue in the 2020 count. I said, you don't know what the big political issue is going to be. Tell me what it, the one political issue I know is going to be there is the economy. Tell me what's going to happen with inflation.

Tell me what's going to happen with job security. And so, you know, there's two certainties for this next election. Biden's favorability ratings are going to play a role and the economy is going to play a role. And other than that, it's going to be something you haven't even heard of. I completely agree with that. I do think, however, that voting rights and voting reforms will be, a major issue because there's partisan interest in both, right? I mean, that's people, people can make hay of that, and I think we'll make hay of that.

It also is popular in, you know, small dollar fundraising appeals and what have you. Steve, I'll tell you where it's going to make a difference when people try and mail in a ballot and they can't. When people try and use the same process that they used during COVID to vote, and somebody's taken it away. And guess what? Who that's going to benefit? because I will tell you when you tell people they can't vote, they'll stand in line for eight

hours to vote. Yeah. I mean, look, as somebody as a conservative who believes strongly that we should do virtually everything we can to make sure that people can vote and do so with some accountability, I think the Republican response to that would be, look, these were going to be temporary measures. These were emergency measures because we were at a pandemic and now there are things that should all be made permanent.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that. I agree with some of it. I think Sarah said this best. Why do you assume that big turnout hurts us? I mean, so why are you reforming this? Why are you reforming this so you make it harder for people to vote? Yeah. And so it's like, yeah, they were maybe temporary measures, but they were good measures

and they led to the highest voter turnout in the history of this country, at least since the turn of the century. Why wouldn't we keep them? And you did pretty damn well, except for Donald Trump. Just to be clear, I'm not making this as a partisan. I'm not a Republican. I don't consider myself Republican. But I do think that there's a legitimate complaint.

If you're a Republican voter and you say, look, we have to do this. COVID is so serious. We have to do these are emergency things. Yes, it was not the way that we told you the rules were going to be going into this election. But it's so important to make accommodations because. of the virus. This is a one-time thing. Here's what we're going to do it. And then the results happen. And from the perspective of a Republican, they will say, Democrats won the presidency, Democrats won the Senate. And now they want to make these rules permanent. I'm not making that

point on a partisan basis. I think it's better for everybody if we have more people voting. But I think that's not an illegitimate concern. Let me go back to your bigger point and just tell you where I have problems with the Democratic argument. argument on this. The concern I have about what Joe Biden said at the press conference is I agree with you. I agree with everything that you said about Donald Trump. I agree. I share your concern with what some Trump Republicans are trying to do at the state and local levels. I think it's abundantly clear that Donald Trump tried to cheat, that he lied to do it, that he tried to stay in office, that there was much more of a concerted plan that they were trying to

implement than just a one-off thing. And I worry about the state of our democracy. I worry about whether we will continue to do this. I think it's an existential threat. What concerns me is when I hear somebody like Joe Biden say, you know, Republicans who oppose my preferred voting reforms are like those who favor Jim Crow are like Bull Connor. Let's just give him the benefit out and assume that he said they weren't Bull Connor, but like Bull Connor. Like, that's a bullshit argument, frankly. And it takes those of us who share the broader concern, and it should be a big group. It takes those of us and it makes me say, like, forget it.

They're not playing on the level. Why should I play on the level? I mean, I think of somebody like Mitt Romney who's given these two impassioned floor speeches about this and said, look, I stood up. I took arrows for years now, arguing on behalf. of, you know, voter integrity, on behalf of not allowing people in my own party to thumb the scales. And now the president of the United States is doing this on a partisan, making partisan arguments, make partisan claims that aren't necessarily even true. I think that's the, that's the concern I have. And then the biggest one is saying things like he said,

without saying first, the 2022 election is going to be legitimate. We're going to do everything we can. We're going to get our Justice Department. Everybody should have confidence that the votes that they cast will be counted and counted right and that the elections will be legitimate. And then raise whatever issues. I think he does undermine, I think he really does undermine the sense of the perception of legitimacy.

And I think Kamala Harris made it worse yesterday with her attempted cleanups where she said, she's asked directly, was he saying that this was going to be a legitimate? of it, and she in effect said, yeah, that's what are you saying? Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to defend it. I think that it will lead to, I mean, just as Trump, when he went to Georgia and told everybody that your vote wasn't going to be counted, I mean, people would argue, oh, that me, I honestly think that the Georgia election turned more on insider trading allegations, but that's just me.

I think that that hurt Kelly Loughler and Purdue a lot more than and Purdue still got to answer to that insider trading stuff. So to me, so you can't on one hand say Trump suppress the vote by saying it's not legitimate, so don't vote, right? Which is what Trump said in Georgia. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, the system's rigged. And so people stayed home. allegedly. I'm not sure that that's true. But so you run the risk of suppressing your own road. And so it's not fair. It's not smart for our democracy, but it's equally bad political

strategy, right? And so how do we come around? And I think the, you know, if I were Joe Biden today, I would call Mitt Rami, and I would apologize, and I would say I never intended to paint with a broad brushstroke. There's a lot of bad stuff going out there. Would you agree to help me pull together a commission that's looking at these things from the perspective of getting everybody to vote? Can we agree that maybe we aren't going to get legislation, and you don't like this federal intrusion, which is reduced? because Constitution says that the Congress has the ability to determine federal elections. But, you know, let's put all that aside. It's all the rhetoric of the day. And instead, focus on what are the standards for a free and fair election. You know, I'm on the board of something

called Restore Democracy Initiative. I don't know if you've heard of it. It's a great group. Yeah, Gary Kasbroff pulled us all together. And I'm... Gary's great. He's written for the dispatch, sir. several times. Yeah, yeah. So I've, and Binman and, you know, Max Boot, and, you know, so I'm with all these really pretty conservative people. But our goal is to have that dialogue and to not have it in a partisan bent, but to basically get to a fact-based analysis of what constitutes free and fair elections and how do we, how do we, as a group of people, restore the faith in elections as part of the way to renew our democratic values.

With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at amex.ca. All right. Last question, Heidi Heikamp, you have mentioned a few times that you you did the taxes for all North Dakotans.

That's what I've heard from you. That's not true. I used to tell people if they didn't file their taxes. That was the kind of constituent services that Heidi Hyde Camp offered in North Dakota. I mean, there's not that many people. So she could just come to your house and do your taxes. I have a big family. What can I tell you?

So you actually do do the taxes for your family. And I hope you don't mind me mentioning. You said that you thought it was important to actually know how the tax code works for different income levels, et cetera. I'm wondering if you have one thing you could change in the current tax code, what you would do. I would make it easier for small business to create more safe harbors and just basically say, look, you know, keeping all these records and all this business, how about we make your burden a lot lighter and make sure they are small business? That's not some large business that then creates a bunch of small businesses. so you'd have an enforcement mechanism.

But if I could do one thing, I would take the tax burden off small business. Well, that's a pretty good answer. The dispatch thanks you. Well, I mean, you know, you take some, and this is part of what my experience is as tax commissioner in North Dakota, you know, because we've administered sales tax. And so if you're running a salon, you're a small, you know, sold performance, or maybe you've you've got somebody's convinced you to do an LLC or a sub as right so you're you're you're a sole proprietor and and you have to get a retail sales tax permit right because you're going to

sell shampoo and hair stuff and whatever you know i saw so many great body guys i saw salon owners i saw these small businesses that they were so good at what they did guess what they just weren't good at keeping records. And it keeps people out of that entrepreneurship. People who are really good and have skill sets, but don't have business sets. And so you say, well, they need to learn this stuff. Well, they don't want to learn it. And so let's make it easier for them to file their taxes, do payroll, do all the things that would lighten their burden and allow them to grow their business. You also say on your Twitter feed that it's like one of the most important things in your life, clearly.

You list your former jobs, what you currently do, and then love golden retrievers. How many golden retrievers do you have? Oh, you know, there was Step who was huge and aggressive for a golden, and he lived 17 years, I mean, long for a large golden. And then out of nowhere, copper showed up. And so she was our puppy for a long time. And this last time, Buffy, the vampire slayer, showed up.

But I knew that when I got her, my daughter moved home to during the pandemic. She and her boyfriend, now fiancé, soon-to-be husband, were in a 600-square-foot apartment in San Francisco. Oh, my God. I mean, they couldn't work in the same space. And so they moved back, and we've got a fairly big house, like a lot of people our age. who raised kids. And I knew I couldn't get too attached to Buffy because when I saw the car going

down the road to go back to California, that dog was going to be looking out the rear view mirror. So Buffy is still with us. Our whole family, our golden retriever families, we've had Tucker, we've had Max, we've had Harley, we've had Harley Davidson, you know, who is Dave's son. I mean, we love our golden retrievers. They're wonderful family. dogs and great hunters, which are families, a big hunting family. Our latest dog is probably my nephew's latest dog is probably the best hunting dog we've ever had. Well, a bipartisan issue, if there's ever been one, dogs, puppies and pie, right? Well, so if you're looking for common ground for me and Elizabeth Warren, she loves her golden as well. She's a big golden

retriever fan. When I, Elizabeth Warren was obviously a professor at Harvard Law School when I was there, and she got her puppy while I was a student there. And it was, I mean, it stopped school. Like to get to volunteer, to walk the puppy, to care for the puppy. She couldn't walk across the quad without being mobbed by students. Not for her. Nobody cared about the most famous professor at Harvard Law School. They just wanted to hang out with the dog.

So, yeah, I mean, that is not some fake politician thing. She really does love her puppies. And it's interesting because people were saying when she ran her president. And she said, well, you know, what do you drink? She said, I drink alter light beer. I drink beer. And people like, oh, well, she's just trying to be Joe six-pack. I said, no, that's what Elizabeth drinks. I mean, you know, give her a break. Give her, she is who she is. She's not afraid to be who she is. And there's something really genuine about that. And so I think when you look at these politicians, the authenticity,

you know, whether you agree with or not, that's something we need more of, more authentic people who aren't looking over their shoulder wondering, how do I pander to this group or that group? But what do I personally believe and what's my personal value? Like Lindsay Graham, that's who I have in mind when I think of authenticity, right? Says what he thinks. Irrespective, irrespective of the political moment. And on that note, Heidi, thank you so, so much for joining us. This is a treat. Appreciate it. Take care. This is brought to you. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online.

Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools.

All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatched. to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.